Preston v. Leake

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a “credible threat of prosecution” gave the plaintiff “standing to mount an as-applied challenge to the statute”
• noting that lobbyists subject to contribution ban had numerous alternative means of engaging in First Amendment activities
• upholding state ban on contributions from lobbyists, in part because lobbyists “are especially susceptible to political corruption”
• upholding lobbyist contribution ban, which defined contributions to include gifts, under closely drawn scrutiny
• finding that lobbying “by its very nature” was “prone to corruption and therefore especially susceptible to public suspicion of corruption,” and, “in aiming the ban at only lobbyists, who, experience ha[d] taught, 6 NJBA “acknowledges that Beaumont has not been overruled.” (ECF No. 92 at 30.
• upholding North Carolina’s ban on lobbyists’ contributions because it rested on “a legitimate legislative judgment” that “a complete ban was necessary as a prophylactic to prevent not only actual corruption but also the appearance of corruption in future state political campaigns”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).